Thursday, May 24, 2012

Cognitive Infiltration

Every month more evidence piles up, suggesting that online comment
threads and forums are being hijacked by people who aren't what they
seem. The anonymity of the web gives companies and
governments golden opportunities to run astroturf operations: fake
grassroots campaigns that create the impression that large numbers of
people are demanding or opposing particular policies. This deception is
most likely to occur where the interests of companies or governments
come into conflict with the interests of the public.

Nah, this can't be really going on, could it? Everyone is familiar with spammers who log onto forums and blog comments to leave seemingly relevant comments on the topic under discussion, while their handle links back to some shady internet-based business selling crap...but the government actually doing so to sow confusion and dissension with dis- and mis- information ? You don't say? That sounds positively....conspiratorial.

lozlzolzolzol

We have our very own Ministry of Truth, perpetually scanning teh interwebz to control the narrative and propagate newspeak.

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest
confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme
Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality,
and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School,
Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S.
Government employ teams of covert agents and
pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate”
online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which
advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the
Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in
government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.
The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.Sunstein
advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be
accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social
networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the
Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible
voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those
who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to
those who appear independent while secretly acting on
behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating
false “conspiracy theories,” which they define to mean: “an attempt to
explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of
powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.”

Sunstein wrote this paper calling for cognitive infiltration in 2008. Mere months later, newly elected President Obama appointed him Head of OIRA. What does OIRA do?

OIRA reviews collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, and also develops and oversees the implementation of
government-wide policies in the areas of information technology,
information policy, privacy, and statistical policy.

What do you bet "cognitive infiltration" is an official government policy now?

Check out this promotional graphic. The company's website from whence it originated, no longer has it available on their server. Upon first coming across this pic, I mistook it for a typical TheOnion or The People's Cube type of political satire.

lozlzolzol....I wonder how many times I've tangled with "Professional BLOG Warriors?!?!" Not just in the manosphere, but in the comment sections of mainstream media websites, and sport and various hobby forums, blogs and message boards I've frequented; ever since the old Ministry of Truth Director, Al Gore, invented teh interwebz?

Oh yeah, let's not forget about sock puppets. Used to be a sock puppet was some forum or commentariat regular who created a new profile or used the trusty old "Anonymous" handle to use a lowdown or cruel personal attack on another, so as not to ruin the reputation of their regular profile amongst that particular forum. Apparently, the professional corporate shills take sock puppeting to a whole new level:

After I wrote about online astroturfing in December, I was contacted by a whistleblower. He was part of a commercial team employed to infest internet forums and comment threads on behalf of corporate clients, promoting their causes and arguing with anyone who opposed them.

Like
the other members of the team, he posed as a disinterested member of
the public. Or, to be more accurate, as a crowd of disinterested members
of the public: he used 70 personas, both to avoid detection and to
create the impression there was widespread support for his pro-corporate
arguments.

Imagine that? Wonder if any of us has ever read an entire comment thread composed by one or two dis-info PsyOp infiltrators and corporate troll whores sock puppeting various profiles to make it seem like a vibrant community of varying voices? Would it be outlandish to suppose that there may a prominent blogger in any of these sectors in the blogosphere, who has built up a stellar reputation, a multitude of followers and popular comment threads, was actually one of these cognitive infiltrators?

It now seems that these
operations are more widespread, more sophisticated and more automated
than most of us had guessed. Emails obtained by political hackers from a
US cyber-security firm called HBGary Federal suggest that a remarkable
technological armoury is being deployed to drown out the voices of real
people.

•
Companies now use "persona management software", which multiplies the
efforts of each astroturfer, creating the impression that there's major
support for what a corporation or government is trying to do.

•
This software creates all the online furniture a real person would
possess: a name, email accounts, web pages and social media. In other
words, it automatically generates what look like authentic profiles,
making it hard to tell the difference between a virtual robot and a real
commentator.

• Fake accounts can be kept updated by
automatically reposting or linking to content generated elsewhere,
reinforcing the impression that the account holders are real and active.

•
Human astroturfers can then be assigned these "pre-aged" accounts to
create a back story, suggesting that they've been busy linking and
retweeting for months. No one would suspect that they came onto the
scene for the first time a moment ago, for the sole purpose of attacking
an article on climate science or arguing against new controls on salt
in junk food.

• With some clever use of social media,
astroturfers can, in the security firm's words, "make it appear as if a
persona was actually at a conference and introduce himself/herself to
key individuals as part of the exercise … There are a variety of social
media tricks we can use to add a level of realness to fictitious
personas."

Perhaps the most disturbing revelation is this. The US Air Force has been tendering for companies to supply it with persona management software, which will perform the following tasks: {Note: the link no longer shows the following RFP}

a.
Create "10 personas per user, replete with background, history,
supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally
and geographically consistent … Personas must be able to appear to
originate in nearly any part of the world and can interact through
conventional online services and social media platforms."

b.
Automatically provide its astroturfers with "randomly selected IP
addresses through which they can access the internet" (an IP address is
the number which identifies someone's computer), and these are to be
changed every day, "hiding the existence of the operation". The software
should also mix up the astroturfers' web traffic with "traffic from
multitudes of users from outside the organisation. This traffic blending
provides excellent cover and powerful deniability."

c.
Create "static IP addresses" for each persona, enabling different
astroturfers "to look like the same person over time". It should also
allow "organisations that frequent same site/service often to easily
switch IP addresses to look like ordinary users as opposed to one
organisation."Software like this has the potential to
destroy the internet as a forum for constructive debate. It jeopardises
the notion of online democracy. Comment threads on issues with major
commercial implications are already being wrecked by what look like
armies of organised trolls – as you can sometimes see on guardian.co.uk.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless
of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public
figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and
you never have to deal with the issues.2. Become incredulous and indignant.
Avoid
discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be
used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct
group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.3. Create rumor mongers.
Avoid
discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or
evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms
mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works
especially well with a silent press because the only way the public can
learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can
associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a
'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no
basis in fact.4. Use a straw man.
Find or
create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can
easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look
bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your
interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select
the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance
and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real
and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real
issues.5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This
is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other
methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with
unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing',
'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists',
'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others
shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you
avoid dealing with issues.6. Hit and Run.
In
any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent
position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply
ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and
letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new
identities can be called upon without having to explain critical
reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing
issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would
dignify the opponent's viewpoint.7. Question motives.
Twist
or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent
operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids
discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.8. Invoke authority.
Claim
for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your
argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one
who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or
demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.9. Play Dumb.
No
matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing
issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense,
provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a
conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
A
derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of
high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were
already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should
the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have
your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as
part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless
of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with
the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need
to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is
or was involved with the original source.11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.
Using
a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and
'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made
-- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out
of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just aren't so.'
Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call
for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right
thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming
clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious
issues.12. Enigmas have no solution.
Drawing
upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the
multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex
to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to
lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.
Avoid
discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent
deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.14. Demand complete solutions.
Avoid
the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand
completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.
If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.17. Change the subject.
Usually
in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to
side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in
hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works
especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new
topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing
more key issues.18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
If
you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw
them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish
and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less
coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first
instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you
can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are
to criticism.'19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs.
This
is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the
material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent
to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be
something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a
murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may
be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or
books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny
that statements made by government or other authorities have any
meaning or relevance.20. False evidence.
Whenever
possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to
conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize
sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime
was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be
easily separated from the fabrications.21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body.
Subvert
the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive
issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and
testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance,
if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears
no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to
subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the
matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is
applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain
charges when seeking to frame a victim.22. Manufacture a new truth.
Create
your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence
existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative,
or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way,
if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.23. Create bigger distractions.
If
the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive
issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such
as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to
distract the multitudes.24. Silence critics.
If
the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from
circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address
issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and
detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of
blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially,
emotionally, or severely damaging their health.25. Vanish.
If
you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you
think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the
kitchen.

It took me a long, long time; of near daily interactions at forums, blogs, and comment sections; before I began to even suspect that there may actually exist bought and paid for corporate shills and Government cognitive infiltrators, whose entire purpose was to invade various forums, and pretend to be genuine participants with no ulterior motives, to ultimately try and control the narrative. But now I am fairly positive they exist.

I used to always take the bait of any old anonymous or generic numerical handle that would engage in one or more of the 25 Rules of Disinformation. but now I've resolved to stick with arguing or debating folks I "know" by reputation and my own long term interactions with. There's no "winning" in responding to a cognitive infiltrator or corporate troll whore.

These Corporatist hacks and Big Brother stooges are the literal, present day manifestation of the job Winston Smith had a as a clerk in the Ministry of Truth, in which his sole task was to revise official history to fit the Party narrative. Disgusting quislings and apparatchiks for the 21st Century Panopticon - Police State USAinc., aka our Brave New World Order.

1984 was not a novel. It was the masterpiece of the greatest whistleblower of the 20th century, serving notice to future generations.

23 comments:

Thank you for those twenty-five rules. As it is impossible to remember them all, please make this article a permanent, unique reference at the side of your blog.

I have come to the conclusion from reading your article that the government has imposed so many layers of deceit within the internet that the government no longer needs to assume direct control of it; furthermore, the knowledge of the presence of such extensive deceit creates indecisiveness and prevents action: in military terms - I have no military background - the layers of deceit destroy the OODA loop. The informed citizen is now the "informed" citizen.

We have been thrown back upon ourselves; we must climb into Descartes stove - I think it was his stove - and establish the ground of our understanding and knowledge. Being a Christian, my ground is Yahweh and his word; from this I will work outwards.

Do not take even Yahweh and his offspring Jesus for granted, it might turn out to be just a Jewish control device. I am not saying it is, just leaving this possibility open.

The only thing you can relay on is your masculine honor. Whatever is Gods name it is certain that trough your masculinity you are in its image. Do what you must to remain a man and believe to no gods if they try to lead you astray from this. The real God is essence of masculinity.

I know for a fact such organizations exist. I worked in the video game industry for a while, and they make wide spread use of a mild form of what you are describing. The company I was working for wanted us to make profiles on their company site forums and talk up the product. At my employer, and many others I visited while working there, our handles would have tags that mentioned the user was a "dev" or "admin" so it while the techniques and goals were the same as you describe, their was no mistaken identity; it was not take that far. But that was only some of the companies I interacted with, many of the biggest game companies, has anonymous users/trolls prowl the forums as apparent regular game users to try to gather info on player impressions and minimize peoples displeasure with bugs and issues. Since the basic system you are describing exists and taken as gospel in the entertainment industry, I have no doubt that bigger and more important organization are guilty of extraordinarily more of the same.

I think a while ago, some big bank (Goldman Sachs? Bank of America?) had their employees trolling a blog that was posting articles critical of them. They were caught because said employees were posting directly from their work computers, without using proxies.

So I wouldn't worry too much about it. Yes, there are disinformation artists out there, but they're incompetent, bungling fools.

Justin: I agree with you that posting under your real name is valuable to a certain extent (which is why I do it), but dismissing everyone who writes pseudonymously is insane.

The manosphere has real enemies looking to harm or discredit us. Just look at what the SPLC tried to pull. Roosh wrote yesterday about how haters have tried to get him arrested and/or killed. Most of the alt-right figures who write under their real names, like Derbyshire and Sailer, live precariously because of it.

I'd say there are two classes of writers who should write under their real names:

Matt, number one, Roosh is full of shit. There is no reason for you to believe anything he says, he is a salesman, nothing more, nothing less.

Number two, the manosphere only has those enemies because of the over-the-top bull shit talk enabled by anonymous pseudonyms.

Perfect example is FerBard, who rants about the need to START a REVOLUTION!!! [behind the safety of his anonymous posts....]

I'll be honest with you, dude, I did anonymous "revoutionary" writing for an underground newspaper in high school.

And then I grew up.

I'm not dismissing everyone who posts anonymously, and there are tons of good reasons for it, obviously. I am talking about the thesis of Keoni's post: the problem of anonymous disinformation campaigns. The solution is simple: dismiss anything that isn't posted by a real person willing to stand by what they write.

The solution is simple: dismiss anything that isn't posted by a real person willing to stand by what they write.

Agreed.

Like everything else I write about, there is only one solution I offer:

Personal awareness of the truth so that you can make the best decisions for yourself.

I personally like the anonymity of teh interwebz, because it does offer a forum for the debate of ideas on their own merit.

Now we just have to learn to recognize the frauds from the legit and intellectually honest, so as not to waste time, effort and mental energy with the infiltrators.

This is why I said I've decided to no longer engage in debates online with any profile unless I've noted them for some time and have ascertained that their writings have a certain level of consistent verisimilitude. Trolls, Anon drive-bys etc. are just a waste of time.

The problem with putting your full name down is the fact that companies will fire you for some of the comments and sites you go to. I don't have a face book profile for this very reason.

The process you're describing here sounds like the normal leftist propaganda technique modified for internet usage. A sea of noise and alliterative arguments that forces you into the official state line. It's the most effective of the big 3 propaganda models.

And you're basing this on what? The fact that you personally don't like him?

Everything he wrote about in that article is independently verifiable, especially the Estonia incident. Here's the blog that was set up to stalk him. Stormfront even joined in, and there were a whole bunch of Reddit posts from people tracking his whereabouts.

Secondly, Keoni made a good point about verisimilitude. It's impossible to front indefinitely on the Internet, unless you're a sociopath. You can embellish and stretch the truth to a certain extent, but if you try to play a character, the mask will eventually slip. There are phonies throughout the manosphere, but the ones at the top got there because they have authority and gravitas.

You said it yourself: bullshit walks, truth talks. You may not like Roosh, Heartiste, Bardamu etc., but they're telling the truth.

Number two, the manosphere only has those enemies because of the over-the-top bull shit talk enabled by anonymous pseudonyms.

If you seriously believe that, I've got a bridge in Ithaca to sell you.

Go back to the SPLC list. They named moderate sites like the False Rape Society and r/MensRights that are written in an neutral tone and actively police their ranks to keep out misogynists and crazies. For that, they were rewarded by being lumped in with bombastic sites like In Mala Fide and the Spearhead.

Men on the sidelines will see that and think, "Why shouldn't I be over-the-top and confrontational? Liberals/feminists are going to libel me either way, so I might as well try and get attention and enjoy myself."

Yes, there are writers like Bardamu who deliberately court controversy, but if you think the SPLC and their fellow travelers view you any differently, you're delusional. Being "grow[n] up" is not going to save you, because by merely opposing their ideology, they consider you their enemy.

The solution is simple: dismiss anything that isn't posted by a real person willing to stand by what they write.

@Matt Forney: thank for your response to Justin, I think he might dislike Roosh because he (Justin) is anti-game. By the way you are correct the mere fact of opposing the existing ideology and discourse will get you labeled an extremist.

Sometimes it seems like there is a concerted effort to disrupt my ability to communicate via the internet. Ironically right now it is not about incoming information but just a restriction on getting to my normal outgoing sites (wordpress, yahoo and other personal email). This is strange and I try not to be paranoid, but I am not so stupid to know such technology does not exist. Go ahead and accuse me of wearing a tin foil hat.

The frequency of occurrences of strange things is increasing. So we need be aware, but I refuse to self-sensor. I am a productive useful man and not a domestic terrorist!

Anyone who thinks that the VAWA receiving billions a year in public funding based upon pure lies and sexism, wouldn't also resort to using plants for a few mere bucks to ensure the money keeps rolling in, doesn't understand basic economics.

Also, the "higher ups" who want to deconstruct the family, will need the backlash of the MRM to go in "the right direction." Ie. More government, not less.

1. Whilst it would be great to not need anonymity and to stand by your words and upon your honour, we do not live in times friendly to such notions. In short, were you to point out IRL that certain Jewish banking families are fucking the world up, you will be ostracised, called an anti-semite and can be arrested or fined. If you point out that blacks seem to be more violent than whites, or that women are different from men etc you again make yourself liable.

2. Beware corporate shills trying to turn their enemies against one another. Half the manosphere is Christian and half is atheist, yet both sides seem to pour hate on each other without focusing on what they both want; to be left alone to do what the hell they want. There are probably many other examples of dissent sown by trolls for ulterior motives. Perhaps alongs racial lines. I am probably guilty of helping to spread some of them

3. Within the Paleo world I have noticed that more and more people seem to be pushing that a small amount of grains are ok...really? Or is it Monsato or others at work

4. How many manosphere bloggers do you think are fakes? I suspect two among Keoni's blogroll. Then again maybe its because they just have different opinions.

5. I wonder how many facebook profiles are fake? Yet another reason to let FB stock rot.

6. The problem with those twenty five rules (aside from keeping them straight) is that people are prone to break some of them through posting without thinking (which is the basis of every forum). How many of you have built up and kicked the crap out of strawmen before?

7. Which leads me to a suggestion. When it comes to debating points of view perhaps we need to look back to when to discussion and debate meant something. Back before the advent of the 20th century and the devolution of human thought into snippets of barely formed buzzwords.Full written debates following the rules of debate, logic and grace between two opposing views overseen by a neutral party who does nothing other than ensure that both sides adhere to the rules of debate.I have in mind here the sort of debates Vox Day engages in but with a third party ensuring both sides keep it decent.The audience is then free to make up their own minds.

For a less evil, and completely indisputable example, look up the reviews of Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer on IMDB. A dissapointing, lackluster movie, it nonetheless has a couple dozen 10 star reviews from users who rated every Fox movie from 2007 at 10 stars.

The depth of dishonesty present in these people can only exist in the mind of a true believer, who treats their politics like a religion. An example of this mindset is NBC's edited Zimmerman transcript - they'll lie to help you see their 'truth' better.

Can you even imagine doing this? With our opponents, we argue honestly. We have a positive case to present. All these bastards can do is errode the Truth, they have nothing in their souls.

I'm going to side with Matt Forney on the Anonymous thing; there's a long and proud tradition over the centuries to Anonymous, and I'd even go so far as to say that 4chan is one of the most likely kettles to boil over.

Lunatics such as Matt, myself, and our host can get away with speaking the truth, but I can think of more than a few pseudonymous blogs which speak such ugly truths that it would instantly ostracize the individual, were their name to be attached to it.

It's far too easy to lose one's job thanks to an over-sensitive HR department. The truth will win out eventually. So long as it's spoken.

I am not worried about these ass-hats they've been doing this for a while.

What worries me is the paranoia they induce will make it harder for legitimate disagreements to happen and will harden opinions.

I don't yet have a political blog but assuming I did with this type of conduct being common I now have to assume anyone who disagrees with me strongly or has a slightly less than standard opinion is a plant and a troll and ban them immediately

That makes error correction harder and makes really stupid ideas now being sounded in echo chambers look a lot more appealing.

This might be your best post ever and confirms everything you've been blogging about.

I recently had an unmarked helicopter buzz my home at a very low altitude for several minutes taking photos (I've lived near an airport my whole life and know how commercial and police helicopters fly), maybe they mistook my beans for dope?

I used to think guys like Steve Quayle were lunatics (concerning government lists of belligerent citizens) but now I'm not so sure.